One of the things that is true of the dissident right is that it was helped greatly by the collapse of libertarianism. Starting in the late 1980’s and into the 1990’s, right-libertarianism was a safe haven for temperamental conservatives to exist on the right, but also reject large parts of what was calling itself conservatism. The two most notable issues were the war on drugs and foreign policy. Most people were attracted to libertarianism because it was serious about small government and restrained foreign policy.
After the fiasco of the Bush years and the metamorphosis of the Left into a strange morality cult, libertarianism seemed ready to have its moment. The Ron Paul campaign of 2008 was probably the peak. While no one thought Paul could win, it certainly looked like he could break through and be a serious candidate. Then the New Hampshire primary happened, where he was able to get just eight percent of the vote. It was thought to be the ideal place for a guy running on libertarian ideas, but he bombed.
Talk to people in the alt-right and what you typically learn is they moved into dissident politics after the disappointment of the Ron Paul campaign. What they slowly figured out is that right-libertarianism was just a proxy for white identity politics. The sort of country imagined by Ron Paul could be nothing but a white country. Not only did it have no appeal to blacks, it could never be multi-racial. Put another way, if you want libertarian politics, you need libertarian people. Politics is down stream from culture and biology.
Left-libertarianism is just a beard for Progressivism, much in the same was conservatism is just window dressing for the prevailing orthodoxy. That’s something else you hear from alt-right people. Many passed through left-libertarianism, realized it was just low-tax liberalism, moved into right-libertarianism and finally race realism. This is a common story, even among Gen-X people who maybe started out as Buchanan supporters. They found the Ron Paul crowd the next best thing and moved into it in the 1990’s.
Something similar may be happening with Donald Trump. We’re seeing some new voices in the dissident right, guys like Josh Neal and Jefferson Lee, who have recently made the trip from the nether world of libertarian Trump supporter. There are a lot of people in the libertarian-conservative camp, who voted for Trump as the least worst option. These are the Flight 93 voters, who never really liked Trump, but saw him as an agent of change. He would break the old model of politics and usher in an era of reform.
A strong whiff of this is turning up in comment sections and social media, where people sympathetic to Trump are increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress. The overtly racial response to Trump from the orthodoxy has probably red-pilled more people than Jared Taylor has done in 30 years. The combined effect of Trump’s failures and the intensely racial response from his opponents, is having a similar impact on whites as the failure of Ron Paul libertarianism a decade ago. Disappointment is leading to discovery.
Inevitably, the Left had to make race and ethnicity central to their presentation, because it is explicitly a coalition of identity groups now. There is the Judeo-Puritan elite, ruling a collection of tribes based in ethnicity, race and selected perversions. There’s simply no way for the people at the top to rally their tribes without being explicitly racial. Even their anti-male rhetoric is obviously anti-white male rhetoric, which has always been an obvious war on white people. The elephant in the room is now visible to everyone.
The new blasphemy laws aimed at whites talking race is just a blunt force implementation of the old prohibitions against frank debates about race, but done so in a way to rally the tribes. On the one hand, the hope is they can stop the exodus of whites from both the Left and conventional conservatism, by anathematizing the subject. On the other hand, it is a useful way to rally the troops. The result, however, is that our politics are saturated in race and identity. Inevitably, whites are becoming race conscious.
That’s the other Trump effect. Most likely a Clinton or Bush presidency would have been another four years of more subtle race mongering. It’s hard to know, of course, but there certainly would not have been the panicked response from the orthodoxy if anyone else had won in 2016. It was the shock of Trump not only rumbling through the first line of defense and smashing the GOP, but then driving the populist tank into the middle of the Progressive camp. The response has revealed a lot that had been concealed.
What’s happening now is that the amorphous blob of whites variously called CivNats, Conservatarians, right-libertarians and BoomerCons, is waking up to the a hard reality that defines dissident politics. That is, the problem is not the people running the system, it is the system itself that is the problem. No open system can govern a multi-racial, multicultural empire. Liberal democracy is antithetical to multiculturalism. Voting will not change that reality. Something else must be done.
Just as many libertarians a decade ago realized that that you can only have libertarianism in a white society, many Trump people are learning something similar. The disillusionment with what is happening is leading many Trump supporters to doubt the institutions, rather than the people in them. You can have liberal democracy, orderly elections and the rule of law in an overwhelmingly white society. The lawless response to Trump and his policies is driving Flight 93 voters into the camp of the dissident right.
Pingback: Of Online $hitfests, Systemic Oppression, & Useful IdiocySince 1998 Hitrust.net = Privacy and Protection | Since 1998 Hitrust.net = Privacy and Protection
Pingback: The Intersectionality of Political Tribalism, Religion, Systemic Oppression, & Useful Idiocy - The Daily Coin
That is, the problem is not the people running the system, it is the system itself that is the problem.
On the subject of FGM vs Circumcision, I said the point to draw that line is at the border. Beyond that, our constitution is not set up to allow one practice and disallow another.
Open border libertarians who claim legal entry to the US does not need to include voting rights are naive or lying – our system does not allow for permanent disenfranchisement. At some point, it would be found unconstitutional.
We decide who we are at the borders. Once we have given those up, the game is over.
I keep seeing people on the dissident right state that we will never vote ourselves out of this which is probably true. However, they seem to live in a fantasy world that there is another viable solution.
This usually translates into a fantasy about revolution and a dictatorship. Not only are revolutions very violent there is no guarantee that the right side will win. In fact given that the way right of center whites tend to practice conflict avoidance (and just buy guns) and all the institutions are controlled by the other side, the odds are we will lose a revolution.
For American whites, who let the left win every culture war, to become angry enough to actually fight back, the country may need to be so far gone as to be unsalvageable.
I don’t think anyone can accurately predict if/when the whites fight back.
Take the yellow vest riots. Who would have predicted that a fuel tax was the straw that broke the camel’s back? Now one of the High Priests of Globalism is at risk of losing his position.
Conversely, there is South Africa. Lots of rape, lots of murder, and the remaining whites are still there like cattle waiting to get slaughtered by an increasingly hostile population.
I used to speculate when the breaking point will hit. In France, it happened about a month ago. In South Africa, it hasn’t happened yet even though their situation is significantly more dire than in France. Not sure where the United States will fall on this spectrum. With a recession already starting or just looming around the corner, financial instability is only going to add fuel to the potential fire. 2019 is going to be a lot more interesting of a year than 2018, that’s for sure.
Good examples of France and South Africa. The French have a long tradition of taking it to the streets to oppose policies they don’t like. The South Africans willingly turned over the government to communists who want to destroy them. What is the disconnect between the two countries now? They are both true to form including the French not prioritizing their own survival
This is a great article but let’s see how the dissident right ranks swell when Trump inevitably loses the wall funding fight. The last opportunity to get the wall built is just a few short days away. If he can’t get it done by the 21st, it’s over for him. No wall means no re-election. Some will just give up and go home, some will keep up the faith, and some are going to realize that Trump is not enough and the solution lies further to the right.
If Pelosi and Schumer were smart enough, they would let Trump have his $5 billion, which isn’t enough to do anything meaningful anyway as there are hundreds of miles of border that migrants can just cross instead. But their shortsightedness and arrogance is blinding them from the bigger picture, which is letting the whites have a pressure release valve while demographics keep skewing in their favor. No, they’d rather let it turn into a pressure cooker situation where the situation grows increasingly untenable. Not too smart.
You can’t lose a fight if you don’t fight. Trump doesn’t care about the wall except as a campaign issue
It was Ron Paul’s 2012 run where the GOP machine with Romenycare crushed and did worse where it became clear. 2008 was a trial run. 2012 proved you needed a Trump.
Trump is the civitas maximus. What SeiveGnats can hope to achieve, and he was quagmired by Mueller and the swamp, including Paul Ryno. The price of crushing the anklebiters would be his second term.
I like “Z’s” analysis/literary acumen but, this “labeling hokas-pokas” is gone beyond even the likes of Bill “O’REALLY”.
The early-to-mid 1970s makes for an interesting test case in a lot of purviews regarding culture and politics: what are the relations, and what are the realistic possibilities.
Take culture. Let’s start with literature. Around 1973 or so, White writers published novels like “Gravity’s Rainbow” and “Jonathan Livingston Seagull.” The first was a sort of proto-omniscient meditation on the intertwining of heavy industry, psychological research, the inertia of institutional culture, sexual abnormality, the abnegation of human will, and how it all came together in a gigantic civilizational spit-ball to create first, World War Two and then, the nuclear menace. The second book was about the spiritual life of birds.
In the black literary world, at the same time, we got “Da Man Been Keepin’ Me Down, Yo” “Everybody Be All Like Racist an’ Sheeeit” and “Get On Muh Dick, White Girl.” In the Jewish literary world we got “Oy Vey, I’m Schvitzing Here!” and “Fappin’ Again Over a Shiksa”.
In the White musical world, we got David Johansen and Johnny Thunders recording songs about Frankenstein, bad girls, and Personality Crisis. Jon Anderson was recording some bizarre medieval Elf stuff about Olias of Sunhillow. Philip Glass, Robert Wilson, and an autistic teenager were doing “Einstein on the Beach.” Don Henley was busy being an asshole. David Bowie was having weird hang ups about American consumerism and the Berlin Wall. And Johnny Ramone was doing his Johnny Ramone thing.
In the Black musical world, at the same time, we had the Funky Five doing “Funky Funk in Funk City”, the Fabulous Funky Four recording “Get on Muh Dick (White Girl)” and the Funky Five Plus One recording “Burn Down Dis Funky Town (And Then Get On Muh Dick, White Girl).”
Diversity truly is our strength. And it shows in our politics.
Just to clarify:
Romantacism is young people committing suicide after reading Goethe’s “The Sorrows of Young Werther.”
Enlightenment is convincing other people to commit suicide after reading the “Sorrows of Young Wurther.”
Conservatives are neither Romantics nor enlightened. Conservatives just want to hunt and fish.
I’ll do you one better for the meta narrative. Trump is waking up the non-neoliberals to the fact that the average human is so hide-bound by materialism and normalcy bias that they will never meaningfully oppose neoliberalism. Although the higher IQ races are less disposed to this, they who succumb are still in the majority. The end is not neigh, but anyone with eyes and ears not closed by neoliberalism can enjoy a fairly predictable run of things into the forseeable future.
I’m looking forward to the Democratic primary season when any white male interested in running for president as a Democrat will find out he’s the wrong race and wrong gender. They’re going to be very open and vocal about running a person of color, and probably a female person of color (Kamala Harris?). The anti-whiteness will be off the charts, which will be a prime opportunity to get more white, working class democrats to our side.
Yeah, to me that’ll be the most interesting thing about the next cycle: the democratic primary. Will sanders play a role, or someone with his faction? Hillary again? Or some Biden like figure?
I can see it now if Sanders, Hillary or Biden decide to run: “Old and White.” From now on, it’s all about diversity and vibrancy and the Ocasio-Cortezness for the Party of the Ascendant.
Unless some deus ex machina descends to fix our fraudulent voting system, it will be vibrantly diverse marxists winning everywhere,every time, from here on out.
fix how? If removing the franchise doesn’t include women than no go.
“The Reforms of Z-man” from Dec 13 mentioned universal suffrage as a no-go, among many other excellent ideas.
He neglected to consider deus ex machina, a simple oversight,no doubt.
She’s a bellwether. In 20 years there will be many like her.
Yeah it’s weird that when they have the choice of the two big losers from this cycle they’re choosing Beta O’Rourke over Stacey Abrams
There is no way the Dems can run a white man or old white hag like Hillary. Kamala and her ilk are the face of the new Democratic party, virulently anti-white and proud of it, very anti-male, very pro LBLTQZX.
It will be something when Kamala and some other brown skins are on stage arguing whose more anti-white, pro open borders, etc.
Being from Boston you may be underestimating the “progressive” mindset, BECAUSE she is black and a woman you have to vote for her, otherwise you’re a racist/sexist.
That the proggies do most of our recruitment makes things easier.
On the flip side we wait passively for our fellow tribesmen to come knocking at our door.
At some point we’ll need to take a more active role.
Why is it that a third option or independent always splits the republican vote, and I suppose similarly on the left with Nader in 2000? Perot, Buchanan both supposedly hurt the republicans. I think it is some sort of scare tactic to keep us within the margins; if you vote your heart, the other side will win.
So i propose we weaponize this against the left by forming a third sham party called Hyper Pinko. Basically replicate the platform of sanders with a hard line on gay marriage and transsexuals. That could split the democratic vote. All money collected could be rerouted to dissident right think tanks.
Basically replicate the platform of sanders with a hard line on gay marriage and transsexuals.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but that’s already the “mainstream” left’s platform — and the present reality. Gay marriage is a done deal and being openly anti-trans is a career-killer in corporate America.
For many people like me, libertarianism was a way to show displeasure at the Republican party. After years of voting Republican with the promise of smaller government and only getting larger government in return, voting Libertarian seemed like a principled way to express your anger at the GOP. In my case especially living in a solidly, safely red state (IN), I could vote for that pothead Gary Johnson since my state would go Republican regardless. Something happened in 2016 and left-libertarianism, or what I prefer to call Beltway Libertarianism, completely took over the national scene. Now we get open borders advocacy from Reason and the Libertarian party even though open borders ensures you will never see any libertarian positions become law (except for legalized pot). I still follow the national Libertarian Party on Facebook and their posts are all about homosexual marriage, gender identity and garbage like that. There isn’t really a home for the Lew Rockwell, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Ron Paul-type libertarians in the LP today and many of them are starting to realize it. I imagine most of them will end up in the dissident right unless they just eschew politics entirely.
They really can’t understand that the millions of Central American peasants they want to import will vote for commies and all the free shit they offer.
For this people cheap labor now is more important than anything including but not limited too safety, running water, electricity and not having epidemics
Eric Holder called white America cowardly for not engaging in an “honest discussion about race”. I think a lot us us would like to have that discussion now, although Holder would not like what he hears.
I get honest discussions on race all the time and have for decades. Just not what they would like to hear and probably won’t because people don’t want their lives ruined.
The “honest discussions about race” are only allowed to go one way.
Yeah, I bet a lot of our guys are still kind of libertarians on the inside. It’s just that we used to believe that you could install the libertarian software onto non-white hardware. People are starting to realize you can’t. I think a lot of guys focused on the software battle just because it was easier. But now we’re on Flight 93. No easy way out.
“Comment sections and social media … new blasphemy laws … no open system can govern…” It’s so obvious that few explicitly comment on it, but without the internet our thing wouldn’t be possible. But at the same time, for the left-wing establishment, the internet requires, and becomes a tool for, totalitarian control. It’s like the old Roman roads, used both by the state to control everything, as well as by missionaries promoting loyalties to new kinds of states.
Umnnhhhh…..
Since Trump is clearly NOT a racist and has also openly appealed (to some success) to blacks and Hispanics who are US citizens, I think your thesis here is flawed.
In fact, Trump’s non-racism is what frightens the Left, as their racist history (since at least the Civil War) is now exposed, as you state.
IOW, Trump is attempting to unite the country across racial lines, something which would lead to a collapse of support for the Left. Similarly, Trump has not shown animus toward sexual minorities except in the minimum case of banning taxpayer-financing of tranny surgeries through military membership.
How is it that people come here and still make these Dinesh-tier takes?
Trump has a personal flaw of being gullible to anyone that gives him effusive praise, while harshly attacking his critics. The sycophantic black hustlers that he surrounds himself with are in it for themselves. Meanwhile he ripped sportsballers that have folk hero status across racial lines among youth. And lets not forget the Birtherism and aeons old support for “tough on crime”. The Talented Tenth surely remembers this.
Even crowing about lower black unemployment is clueless, their rate is still above 5%. And putting people into the workforce won’t suddenly or even gradually get them to start following white bourgeois norms on family formation.
You have swallowed flagons of Lefty propaganda, my friend. Trump attacks jackwads who are flagrantly un-patriotic. As to ‘tough on crime,’ are you suggesting that blacks and hispanics are in FAVOR of crime?
The ‘birtherism’ got exactly what Trump wanted: publicity.
Your cynicism exceeds your common sense. That’s dangerous..
That’s where the evidence points.
“blacks and hispanics are in FAVOR of crime”
As a participant, or as a victim?
Pretty much everyone knows “law and order” is a political dog whistle to whites. Non-whites simply don’t care about crime. I thought everyone knew this.
Or a capacity for discipline / tolerance for chaos? Certain groups seem to differ on the ratio.
Both. Here’s the thing the LAPD found out. If they went into a Black or Hispanic neighborhood and busted up the gangs, the locals would scream racism, etc. If the cops shot dead some young bucks the brown skins would go nuts.
If the cops stayed away and let the criminals do as they please the brown skins would get really pissed.
The fact is criminality is hardwired into them and chances a relative is connected to some sort of criminal activity. In many cases it’s passed on from the parents to their kids.
Not the ones I know. Hell, even the TeeVee News in this town can find angry blacks and Hispanics by taking a random walk around crime scenes.
dad29 wrote:
“As to ‘tough on crime,’ are you suggesting that blacks and hispanics are in FAVOR of crime?”
If DD won’t, I will.
At the very least, they both are willing to tolerate much higher crime rates than whites and resent it when whites try to enforce the law on their unruly “bodies.”
Let us get one bit of reality clear: “Tough on Crime” rhetoric and action is a euphemism for “keep the savages on a leash and fouling their own neighborhoods.” Rather than running wild and destroying decent white neighborhoods.
Note that “Tough on Crime” rhetoric grew after Jim Crow and similar laws were abolished and black & brown sorts went apey with their new-found liberty. IOW, all those lefty racial resentment writers are right: “Tough on Crime” is a means to replicate some Jim Crow. Or at least some bits of it. And it was done in defense of middle and lower class whites who can not buy their way away from “diversity” like the affluent can.
This new round of “crime/prison reform” is just another sign that our ruling class hates us.
Well, either Trump is “tough on crime,” OR he’s going to sign the “Reform of Sentencing” bill. Take your choice.
I agree with you that much of the “tough” rhetoric had to do with establishing a red-line. Now, that “tough” stuff is mouthed by Democrat mayors who realize that their tax-base will be zero, zip, nada, in about 10 years or less.
Yes, like Martin O’Malley, mayor of Baltimore just before the blacks destroyed it. O’Malley, as far as I know, has not suffered for his complicity at all. So apparently the lesson is you can destroy a city (or county, state or country, maybe even corporation) and avoid the consequences – as long as you appease the human rights god.
https://technical.ly/dc/2016/05/06/martin-omalley-metrolab-network/
“Leaders of the MetroLab Network cite O’Malley’s experience with CitiStat and StateStat among his qualifications. CitiStat and StateStat are, respectively, city- and state-level data management systems in Maryland that O’Malley implemented when he was Mayor of Baltimore and then governor.”
MetroLab-Network’s new Senior Fellow, Martin O’Malley.
After wrecking something they just move on to an NGO.
I suspect that our ritualized justice system unconsciously seems weak and stupid to them. Their justice is simple, guy wrongs you, beat him or cap his ass,
There isn’t a color bar on this kind of thing, most Whites lived under these systems pre modernity and while many periods had more complex systems, often as not in practicality came to a beating, blade or noose anyway.
This does not allow for a complex society but a lot of people including the usual grifters and child labor for the kitty litter mine libertarians hate complexity except as they can explicit it
There’s a strong undercurrent among blacks/hispanics that crime is a tax that whites have to pay when “social justice” isn’t coughed up. The small brain take is “the stuff in the stores is insured”. Obviously they don’t like crime when their own community is victimized, but they hesitate to report to the (white) police, preferring informal mediators. Read Sudhir Venkatesh: Gang Leader for a Day.
An acquaintance of mine, a middle-aged Dominican, a religious person even, used to roll on the drug dealers in his neighborhood (Jamaica Queens NYC).
He felt he was a victim of the crime the dealer brought into his neighborhood, yet he was also a purveyor of crime because he dealt with the dealer extra-legaly.
—> Situational Ethics. <—
It was Trump’s implicitly pro-white civic nationalist rhetoric that gets lefty ruffled. They care not a white for yet another white guy abasing himself at the altar of duh-versity.
Have to defend elements of your thesis here. Been ringside to Trump here in NYC since the early 90s and know some people remarkably close to him. He’s got a truck load of personality faults, but he will deal with anyone and really never appeared to give a crap what race they were or anything else. My old man was a developer in S. Florida and came from a dirt poor background. Was never around a single minority growing up. He loved the business, loved making deals, most of his partners were Cuban, he loved them because they loved making deals. It wasn’t complicated. I just watch how hard people around here have tried to manufacture a racist history for Trump, with the complicating factor being, he’s put food on the table and paid the mortgages for a lot blacks and Hispanics with his projects. Hasn’t really worked.
It’s funny, but that’s a sensible way to go through life. Wanting to be among your own does not mean you hate other groups and refuse to deal with them. In the current age, anything short of a full-throated embrace of multiculturalism is assumed to racist/sexist/etc, but indifference was the norm for most people until very recent.
Indifference. That’s the word. Trump is indifferent to the whole gay thing. It put him out front of things, years ago, when gays were supposed to be shamed and marginalized. Now his indifference is pegged as hostility. He is blamed for pushing the trannies out of the military, when his biggest concern is (rightly) unit effectiveness and cohesiveness. The powers that be no longer allow indifference to many things, when indifference is actually a good (non) reaction to a lot of what is out there.
Looks vaguely familiar, Z.
A lot of these changes in liberalism are due to rapid changes in technology and the temptation to Utopianism. The dissident right should have less as its focus trying to get back to a mythological age and more of adapting timeless conservative principles to modern technology.
This is a point I made on Friday night. This thing we call the dissident right cannot be reactionary and it cannot be romantic. The failure of conservatism in general is because it was both reactionary and romantic. Put another way, it had its roots in the same soil as radicalism. Radicalism won.
Also I think conservatives and dissident rightists should embrace technology. Show that instead of going to college to get propagandized, take online courses on MOOCS. I actually learned more on the courses than I did in my school, with it even being a STEM school. Also, podcasts and YouTube channels are a great way to get the message out. One great thing about the Internet is that it has broken up the media propaganda machine. Only blue pilled boomers still unquestioningly believe the NYT, the rest now find their own niche.
Interesting, can you give a link to the place you discussed this?
When I think of American conservatism I think of enlightenment liberalism, not Romanticism.
When I think of Romanticism in Europe one thing that comes to mind is Romantic Nationalism, but I’m unclear how this relates to the U.S.
To me it seems like liberalism and the enlightenment have clearly been taken to their logical conclusions and proved self defeating, while Romanticism has more of a mixed legacy
http://thezman.com/wordpress/?p=15782
Thanks, now I get it
The discontent is universal and not solely a feature of any particular race or ethnicity. It exists because we all possess an innate understanding that the current path of society is leading the bulk of us toward weakness and fragility. We are becoming less fit and using the prop of government handouts to avoid taking the hard decision to force fitness upon ourselves. The enemy is not bad or misguided political leadership, it’s the present environment that coddles and pampers us with an easy life devoid of any real hardships.
“…an easy life devoid of any real hardships.”
Kaczynski’s thesis was that
Man needs a challenge
that isn’t too easy to achieve,
and also isn’t impossible to achieve.
It has to be just right,
otherwise Man will either be bored, or frustrated.
And just in the nick of time comes the current Grand Solar Minimum.
The Maunder Minimum could be a game changer.
For most of history, human life was at the whim of the Gods and Nature and everyone was a hunter gatherer or later a farmer.
What does this tell us?
“..we all possess an innate understanding that the current path of society is leading the bulk of us toward weakness and fragility” Blacks and Hispanics have never been more optimistic about the direction of the country. Don’t assume everyone has the same inner world as you. Only Europeans make that assumption.
They don’t realize it, but Trump is the last best hope for the establishment. Reform or revolution?
With the nation as brittle was it is exterminatus is another option and leaving the few survivors to figure out what the successor States will be like
I think one of the biggest contributions the president has given us is revealing the media for what it is = fake news.
Years ago a young black girl was shot to death sitting on a mailbox . The media started howling about local governments inability to protect citizens in depressed neighborhoods.
The backstory was she was look-out for a local gang dealing drugs. Not saying she deserve to be shot to death just that she was not completely innocent and obviously lacked decent parental supervision.
No one would know this unless you worked on the case or spoke with one of the investigating officers. That will be one of the biggest problems moving the dissonant right moving forward.
Fighting the left’s propaganda machine.
I’m still a structured liberty, limited government, constitutional order kind of guy. My formulation is this: experience shows that it’s extremely difficult to maintain a limited, constitutional government in a nation of a substantially homogeneous population. Experience also shows that it’s completely impossible to maintain that limited, constitutional government in a diverse polyglot country. Better to err on the side of homogeneity, not diversity.
We’ll have another wave of former libertarians crossing the river after the new NY AG indicts Trump.
Get the biology right and you have a chance to get everything else right. The biology horse has left the barn, so “structured liberty, limited government, constitutional order” is not going to be on the menu for a very long time.
The globalists who run the managerial state are all palefaces from good biological stock. These people are going to be squashing the Dirt People irrespective of how many melanin enhanced folks are in the population. They’re the root cause of the current dysfunction.
I should have made explicit that “substantially homogenous population” meant “substantially homogenous white population.” My bad.
Agreed. Its been a stupid nostrum since at least automation.
You do not run an industrial society the same way as you would a nation of 10 million mostly small hold farmers they way you do a post industrial society of over 300 million
Its irrational to even try
Worse the ANCAP /Libertarian crowd think you can do without running anything which is nuts. This is the age of computers, automation, home gene engineering or nearly so stacked on top of the industrial age with its vast reserves of toxic and dangerous byproducts
It must be contained, controlled and regulated in order for people to live and for say rivers to not ignite or people not have their DNA changed because some ass-clown is hungry for profits or just curious.
Do you think it is possible that biology is determined by an ethos that a people is determined to follow, creating a natural selection within a populace that eventually makes the biology right. Because I look at a huge number of white people, and their biology seems good for very little but Walmart and daytime television.
the metamorphosis of the Left into a strange
moralityimmorality cultFixed it for ya.
Anyone who thought Trump was a panacea was fooling themselves. The right needs to divest itself from this idea that some person, some event is going to happen and suddenly we will win. That isnt the case and this weird millennialism on the right is an obstacle to putting in the long, hard and tedious work of organising and building towards victory. Rightwing Maoism (for lack of a better term)…slowly building alternatives while working to undermine the current system is the answer.
Trump was one man, without any political history or network of allies. The fact he can get anything done is amazing. His real value is the way he polarises and forces the worst instincts and tendencies of the system and its enablers into the open.
Can’t speak for everyone who voted for him, but I never saw Trump as a panacea. I saw him as a wrecking ball that would demolish a condemned building (whether by his own action, or by his opponents’ reaction).
It’s like Z-man read my life over the past 20 years in this post.
Agree
Trump’s election has shown who really runs the country and what they will do to stay in power. His win shocked the governing alliance of the globalist managerial class and federal apparatchiks into a panic. If a guy nominally sympathetic to the Dirt People somehow got elected president, it meant that their control wasn’t as tight as they thought. Their response is to stage a coup against Trump and rig things so the wrong person can never be elected again. We’ll never vote ourselves out of the present fix.
63,000,000 people have been offered red pills in the process and the dissident right ought to think about exploiting this.
Yes, indeed. Off the top of my head, Trump’s presidency has red pilled the following for me: Rep’s and Dem’s are two sides of the same coin (some exceptions noted), this inevitably leads to the “Deep State” and the other “gray” people who are really running the show, the news media at the national *and* local level are propaganda arms of the State (a few notable exceptions here as well), corporations—especially the more recent large tech companies, are also in bed with the Deep State.
Now perhaps I’m just slow and even stupid, but the above was never completely apparent to me before Trump and his rise to the Presidency. If nothing else, that’s a plus.
What we’ve gotten in the last two years ago is the opening leg of the “Find, Fix, Finish” trifecta. Can’t move on to steps 2 and 3 without flushing them all out. At least they’ve been accommodating in figuratively sky lining themselves.
There was something else working too, I think.
Recall that the Great Maskdropping was already underway *before* Trump became a leading R candidate. IMO The Great Election Rigging of 2016 was already underway, the elites knew it, and thought HRC was a lock.
Oops. Dirt people threw a curve.
Everything since has been a hurried coverup, and a lashing out at the dirt people.
Your line about disillusionment with institutions reminds me of a good observation that fixing corruption of people in high places would be better handled if we just remove the high places.
I can’t remember the exact Sobran quote but to paraphrase with our times, I woke one day and realized I am no longer a libertarian. Of course that was always a name I could not call myself or a movement worth joining. Even the better ones like the Miseans or Rothbard types couldn’t persuade me. Liked their antiwar stance though.
Sailer has Senator Pocahontas on his blog speaking to a college about wealthy privilege and white privilege. See how they are doubling down on the other side? You other whites not with us yet, feel it yet?
I suspect many in the liberal elite wish Warren would fall down a flight of stairs. I’ve always said she is as dumb as a goldfish. The Boston Globe covered for her in her campaigns, but people who know her say she is a dingbat and prone to saying stupid things. Her declaration of war on white families is a great example.
I’m glad to hear you say this about E Warren. She impresses me as a schoolgirl, and that’s what I’ve always called her. A schoolgirl. I’m embarrassed FOR her.
Politics have not been good for her. Back when she was a lecturer she was pretty sound if a bit Left wing
That’s an argument I have made continually – in part because the problem of “fixing” the people who inhabit those high places – is an unsolveable problem (based on historical example).
The founders of this country took that tact on things IMHO, they said the Federal government should only be responsible for a constrained list of things – and the rest were simply not the purview of the government and needed to get handled in some other way.
The left constantly makes an argument based on this logic – when they try to take away guns. They’re essentially arguing that there are no people good enough to hold guns in the civilian population – therefore eliminate them.
We should argue that there are no people good enough to inhabit the upper reaches of society without leading to wholesale societal destruction – therefore the places should be eliminated, and if anybody tries to reach for those positions – it is a societal good to eliminate THEM.
Heh. Bit of an anarchist, aren’t you? I sympathize.
If the dick lickers had no dicks to lick – then dick licking wouldn’t be such a big issue – would it?
Far too many people are sycophants and worship power. I say eliminate the God so I don’t have to listen to the rantings and ravings of all the followers.
White men have proven they can run an orderly society without being subjected to a boot on their neck. If the price of an orderly society – WITHOUT a boot on my neck – is the elimination of “diversity” – as well as things like universal suffrage (or female suffrage in particular) – then so be it.
The way I see it is this: the diversity and the womenfolk were given the chance to participate in that non-tyrannical orderly society – and failed miserably. That’s on them.
You either impose order onto yourself – or somebody will impose it on you. Since I am perfectly willing and able to keep my shit wired tight – I don’t usually take kindly to others (who are more often than not completely without their own personal sense of order) – trying to impose order upon me.
I don’t perceive that as anarchy – it’s just not a top down form of orderly society. The only place I’ve ever run across benevolent “leaders” – is in fairy tales.
My favorite part of the Trump phenomenon has been the awakening by a growing number of ordinary conservatives that the corporations are not their friend. The various Midwestern GOP state governments elected in the 2010 wave spent the last eight years handing out tax breaks to business. Not a single one of these governments did anything to mandate E-Verify. Perhaps for the Boomer generation they are too far gone. But the rest of us need to start dropping the word “nationalization” whenever Big Tech is mentioned in conversation.
Every time I say or write that economics is a tool and culture is the hand that wields the tool, I see a lot of lights go on. “Free market capitalism” turned into a religion of sorts in the 1990’s. What used to be a proxy for white bourgeois sensibilities was divorced from its cultural meaning and became a catechism in defense of managerialism. People are starting to figure it out.
The GOP and predecessors going back to Hamilton were based on the idea that pro-business legislation is supposed to be repaid with corporate funding of the GOP campaigns. This is what Mark Hanna formalized in 1896. But that can be short-circuited by just promising the Congresscreature a seven-figure lobbying position. Even one-term Joe Walsh has a sinecure. The under-reported story of 2018 was how well-funded the Dems were, and the GOP wasn’t.
I keep stressing the economics of the whole thing – because in my experience if you can’t find a way thru to convincing somebody they’re getting screwed by pointing the actual numbers – then all further arguments are pretty much useless. As soon as you start arguing things that most people see as too esoteric ( like culture ) – in my experience the arguments coming out of people’s heads rapidly devolve into insanity.
That’s probably because they’ve been indoctrinated too deeply by the cult, but it still makes it next to impossible to break thru the insanity.
Resorting to using numbers to show clearly how they’re getting screwed ( that’s why I really liked that evaluation that came out a while back showing how much “diversity” cost the average white person – I think it was Vox Day thing) – because it was cold hard numbers.
If you can get somebody to recognize the money flying out of their wallet – the conversation about culture becomes a lot easier. If you can’t even get somebody to recognize they’re getting financially screwed – they’re most likely a lost cause and any further conversation about culture is completely pointless.
I have to work for a living. I know damn well that my path into a conservative mindset comes DIRECTLY from having to spend my life earning money – and then watching how it gets extracted from my grasp by force – and given away to those who play politics to get access to my wallet.
Taxes are quite often the final spark that set off revolutions. If we’re so corrupt as a people that we’ll just accept an endless financial screwing – then all is pretty much lost IMHO. So talking about the finances and the economics is test as well to gauge where people’s heads are at.
Calsdad, I hear ya—but the problem I find is that the general person is innumerate and economically illiterate (and just plain ignorant of costs). For example, it is an easy thing to show how an immigrant family (4) of Mexican mestizos can never be anything but a welfare drain upon the State within which they take residence, just the schooling costs alone for their two (or more) children exceeds the lifetime taxes the parents will ever pay into the system. The figures can be estimated and calculated in your head as well as documented through organizations tracking and recording such. But start the discussion and very quickly eyes glaze over.
Some people respond to rhetoric and others respond to dialectic. Rarely will anyone respond to both. It’s helpful to have compelling arguments in both, and an ability to recognize when to use each style.
Economics is secondary to demographics. Although some economic systems tend to inhibit economic activity more than others, homogeneous white or asian countries will prosper under most systems. Conversely, there is no economic system that will raise countries containing substantial numbers of blacks or hispanics to a first world level.
Here’s my take, for what it’s worth. People who are centrally concerned with maximizing their affluence are not going to rebel, are not going to risk getting fired, doxxed to the world on social media, or worse. Unfortunately, this is the human type who predominates in modernity, especially among Conservative whites, and I don’t foresee that changing any time soon. It’s never going to make good financial sense to rebel against our elite and their System. Keeping your head down, your mouth shut, making the best of the situation, and maximally maintaining your affluence and social status, until we’re white South Africans with nowhere left in the world to escape, is the logic modern whites will ultimately follow.
People who are centrally focused on their wallets are likely also obsessed with their social status, and what largely determines high and low social status today is wealth and more or less following the cues of our cultural masters, i.e. Money, the elite, the heavily unified class of people who own the culture industry and everything else. What we are talking about here is mass bourgeois man under the democratic capitalist system he advocates, and the system of valuing and thinking that is so deeply set within him that he is typically incapable of repudiating it:
“It can be argued that Homeric Greek life offered heroic redemption, Medieval Christianity offered spiritual redemption, and bourgeois liberal modernity offers material redemption to those who most fully embrace its system of truths and valuations.”
https://www.counter-currents.com/2012/08/epistemology-and-the-new-right/
The white bourgeois human type has, over the last two centuries, continually grown in dominating Western societies. As Catholic historian/philosopher Christopher Dawson wrote long ago:
“…let us admit that it is no use hunting for the bourgeois. For we are all more or less bourgeois and our civilization is bourgeois from top to bottom.”
https://www.crisismagazine.com/2011/catholicism-and-the-bourgeois-mind
What’s more, I would say the bourgeois type has continually been purified of non-bourgeois, pre-modern values (aristocracy, warrior, priest, monk, etc.), degenerating into a pure materialist/product of the reigning (capitalist) elite.
If we don’t get through to intelligent young people and break them out of this zeitgeist (it takes intelligence and lack of conditioning for most people to have a chance at such a breakout), who can then position themselves to become a new elite and create a new age (impose a new order, a new conditioning, to bring the white masses fully behind them), I don’t foresee the West surviving. We have to effect a revolution in thinking/valuing at the most fundamental level in a critical mass of whites (see Dyal’s essay above for one understanding of this). To effect this change, we need time (before our numbers are too small to matter) and maximally maintained 1st amendment rights. I don’t believe simple “worse is better” or a crash will spontaneously cause this revolution in thinking/valuing, the masses are too conditioned/too ignorant. To buy time to communicate with the young, whites need to be formed into a voting bloc. In my opinion, the best way to effect this is by nationalist-populism, appealing to more whites via “old Left” style economic arguments and policy (I don’t foresee Conservatism, Inc. voters shifting to the Democrats in response to such nationalist-populism).
Free Market-ism is now an excuse for the anti-social behavior of large business.
‘ “Free market capitalism” turned into a religion of sorts in the 1990’s.’
And Milton Friedman was its high priest.
Can’t remember who, but someone changed my whole worldview back in the 1990s. The guy really understood Japan and the Japanese. Anyway, someone was asking him why the Japanese wouldn’t loosen their rules on American exports, since it would give the Japanese cheaper goods (although it would cause some Japanese to loose their jobs).
The guy said that Americans think like Coolidge: The business of America is business.
But he said the mindset was different over there: The business of Japan is the Japanese.
My libertarian mind was blown. You mean the economy should work for the people and not the other way around. You mean economic growth isn’t your main purpose in life. You mean my life can sometimes be improved by adopting government policies that might lower my material standard of living.
Yep, in ten years just ask the 8M+ long distance and city delivery drivers who are without jobs. You could immediately ask the Medallion holding cabbies in any large city how they are doing now that their Medallion is worth $.10 on the dollar. Or for that matter in 5 years ask any Uber driver how his “side hustle” is going. That is if you can find one still driving.
I’ll have to try that line with my husband. He’s totally on board with the reality of HBD and ethno-nationalism, but turn the talk to economics and he retreats to Ricardo and the perfect, self-correcting “free market.” He preaches the removal of government interference but refuses to recognize that there will always by manipulation and interference of some sort because it’s human interaction – his mystical magical market is an idea that cannot exist in reality.
Oh well, I must be patient. He finally gave up in the U.S. empire/world policeman, quite a feat for an army brat late baby boomer, so sooner or later one assumes he’ll come around on this. In the meantime, though, some family discussions have turned rather . . . feisty.
Trust the invisible hand of the market, goy.
Free trade pits our workers against all the other workers in the world, most of whom will work for a fraction of the cost. Thus, free trade sentences a majority of our countrymen to losing their standard of living to foreigners. Most countrymen want to work hard but many do not have the capability to learn a skill that allows them to maintain a middle class job in a free trade world.
A person who chooses to impoverish many of his countrymen for cheaper goods is someone that I tend to regard as an enemy.
The left has had a field day when the lame duck GOP legislatures in Michigan and Wisconsin passed laws to kneecap the successor Dem Governor. The same GOP that refuses to do anything about demographic inundation will suddenly become race realist when it comes to gerrymandering. Outgoing Governor Snyder of Michigan and Rauner of Illinois were notorious boosters of mass immigration, even while the native whites were moving out and not having kids.
You have bought into the Lefty line that the Wisconsin Leggies “Kneecapped” the incoming Social-Democrat governor. In fact, the duly-elected (R) legislature and duly-elected (R) governor codified long-existing government policy, mostly in non-partisan underbrush areas.
In Wisconsin, the REE REEE REEEEE of the MSM propaganda machine had no effect whatsoever.
Appearance is ideology- RooshV
It does not matter the minutiae of the laws they passed, what matters is the narrative. NW Euro populations are particularly devoted to “fair play” (The Procedure), and the GOP violated that. Perhaps they would have better spent their time apologizing for the Foxconn deal. But their federal counterparts still can’t be bothered to apologize for Iraq, so that may be asking too much.
It is Fair Play, of course, your trolling notwithstanding. Since the Republicans won 64 of 99 Assembly seats and 19 or 33 Senate seats in the ’18 election, it’s eminently fair–except to the professional revolutionaries who inform your “mind.”
I’ll take 10,000 new jobs for my children and grandchildren. You can take Honduras–which by recent accounts has lots of vacant houses.
Walker had two terms with a GOP legislature where he could have mandated and enforced E-Verify. But “muh dairy farms” always had a way of ensuring that didn’t happen. And perhaps he could have read Paul Ryan the riot act on his Kempism.
And tell Ron Johnson that he’ll be packing his bags soon with this kind of thinking. Gerrymandering can’t save him.
https://www.dailyherald.com/business/20180527/what-happened-to-e-verify-x2014-the-governments-popular-way-to-curb-illegal-immigration
Scandinavia is proof that national socialism works, before it gets infected by the Poz.
National socialism, national capitalism, whatever- nation (Family) is the key word.
If “working” means it hasn’t collapsed yet, then yes it might work. People do live a comfortable, protected, life—a life of mediocrity—for the most part. Everyone gets a free portion of health care, a smallish home or apartment, a free University education where they can learn their place in their utopic society. And I’ll admit, they claim to be happy with this for the most part.
Here’s a challenge, take your Scandinavian social paradise countries and name one new multinational company or useful product that they have created in the last hundred years. I can’t think of any. That’s what happens when you live a kept life (think animals in a zoo).
Nokia (which being Finnish is not “Scandinavian” but merely Nordic)
Ikea (founded by a tax-dodging Nazi)
Norway hasn’t invented much, but avoided the “resource curse” common to petro-states. They may have invented some oil tech that isn’t familiar to laymen like us.
Lego
“Norway hasn’t invented much…”
Why, they invented the paper clip! Think where we might be without that!
Oh, yes, I forgot Atlas-Copco.
Perhaps you’ve heard of Husqvarna?
And Electrolux.
My mother had Electrolux. That’s pre socialist paradise, as is Erickson, and the like.
Skype, Mojang (Minecraft), Spotify.
Most ordinary Americans would take that any day over our cut throat system where you have zero job security(your job can be replaced by foreigner or ship over seas at anytime, unless you’re part of the elite). Or where you have to work 2 jobs to make ends meet because your corporations keep importing foreigners to keep the wages down.
Multinationals are plus. You mean like Apple, that uses Chinese slave labor to produce their “cool” products for a bunch of layabout, pot smoking scumbags?
You do also realize we do very little in tech innovation any more. Silicon Valley is now all about coming up with the next great way of spying on us to steal personal info.
Your ideas work for the top 5% in technical disciplines who can write their own ticket and for urban professionals that leech off the other 95% For everyone else, it’s not so good
Rod, that’s true. It’s in the nature of human beings to select security rather than risk. But it’s risk that in the finally analysis that got us where we are today. There is no support from me wrt our mega gazillionaires that don’t give a hoot about the people they beggar on their way to fortune.
It takes more than a decade, typically at least 16 years before women can easily and safely have children and start a family and that is on the low end,
It was 18-20 for women and common in medieval times thought to be 30 for me do the need to gather enough resources
These necessities prioritize security over risk.
Risk is mostly bad and while there are areas where “faster please” is a good thing, medicine and life extension despite the dangers , on the whole anyone sane wants less risk
hell if we had 1990’s economy and demographics I’d be fine without the Internet
Progress after a certain point isn’t
Saab, Sako. Volvo and Bofors are all well known Scandinavian brands with global reach.
As for multinationals., they are part of the problem nothing to be proud of.
The vast cut of humanity is mediocre including most Americans. The Nordic system provides better outcomes for them less hunger, abject poverty, drug abuse and general misery.
Its far from perfect or a utopia and functions only with with trust and low immigration . Its also its a bit of gilded cage but its highly functional in terms of heath and longevity, American rugged individualism means Whites in 97.5% White countries drop like flies from opiate abuse
Now the US can’t actually make social democracy work. We aren’t honest enough and still think we have a frontier to exploit even though we are nearly as tightly developed as Europe
This suggests the Nordic system can’t work here, Not enough Nords or trust.
This means the US will continue its slide into 2nd or 3rd tier with all the joys therein, if it survives the situation at all.
Societies can only handle x amount of complexity and ours is not enough to sustain a prosperous future with the population and the tech we have.
Brazil 2.0 here we come.
” The Nordic system provides better outcomes for them less hunger, abject poverty, drug abuse and general misery.”
Thanks for the laugh.
Ever noticed the alcoholism and suicide rates?
Fertility rates are comparable and maybe a bit higher among Whites in Sweden and life expectancy among White Swedes is four years greater than Americans
Its also not in decline unlike ours.
Contrary to what people on the Right want to believe, the system they chose works for them just fine.
Tell that to the golden one and red ice
Immigration is the issue there and a bit too much Leftism. Both are easily fix once the will is there,
The US OTOH likely cannot be fixed without mass killing of one side or another.
“Ever noticed the alcoholism and suicide rates?”
Imagine how much higher they would be without the social safety net.
Living in northern climes where you hardly see the sun half the year is tough. Without the struggle for life it’s easy to become suicidal.
Alaska is like this with endemic drug use and where drugs aren’t there, drinking. Its 2 years lower last i checked than the rest of the US, 8 lower for natives,
Scandies outlive Americans by 4 years and have lower infant mortality and are healthier all their lives and better educated
Our system doesn’t work for most
And before talks about how much better off we are in the US, some of us are but many are not and unlike them have a continent sized nation and an empire to extract from
They don’t
This does not mean we could do it too, the sane left always assumed we could and with I think generally good intentions.
Culture isn’t that easy to shift though and it can’t be done with policy tweaks
The US will probably soon do something very stupid go hard Venezuelan Commie or the like and provoke trouble
Well or the Right will keep putting off the day bury their guns and end up in boxcars
Car companies were built before the socialist paradise was initiated.
G.M only lives because of a bailout.
And note its not taxes,social spending or unions but wage arbitrage and the FIRE sector that’s killing the economy
The only reason the US even function at all is government spending much of it left over great society stuff, 40% of GDP is State in one form or another
Since wages can never go up baring a Black Death level event or a dictatorship banning automation and trade, the size of the government will grow
You cant opt out, you can’t disenfranchise people and you can’t convince people less spending is better since anyone with an IQ above room temperature is that baring redistribution, everything goes to the top
10% of the population gets all the gains and 1% owns most everything
The government fills in the gaps
What we can do is make the US more homogeneous and as a side effect lower the surplus labor pool
Repatriation, economic nationalism working together can allow for a smaller state.
Otherwise you will get President Cortez or someone like her unless enough Right wingers are willing to go to war which they aren’t
Saab came about the same time as did Ikea .
Last time in Norway, had to watch where you walked. At least one park – outside a police station – was littered with used needles and their spaced out users.
The nordics are ruining their countries by immigration and and an excessive “safety net” that disincentivizes work.
Quite correct to note that the social welfare state fails when attempted in a heterogeneous society. Tragedy of the commons.
I can’t think of any.
Ignorance is not an argument. Must google more.
This argument is like saying the Museum sucks because it doesn’t have good food. Kinda missing the point that some nations prefer egalitè over libertè.
Compsi, I often wonder why Denmark, one of the “happiest” countries in the world has a rate of alcoholism approaching 1 in 3 and a antidepressant market supplying 1 in 8. Medicated perhaps, happy,?
Certainly but it requires Scandinavian or other high trust people and a homogeneous society
Even if Magic Comet AH14W made the US entirely White, it wouldn’t work , we’d be all European but that includes tons of untrustworthy Whites and our history precludes trust.
A nation of immigrants even European and the US was that is by nature one made up of grifters , misfits, non compliant jerks and kooks.
These are not the sort of people able to sustain a long term Nat Soc state
Now Roosevelt was able to do quite a lot but we aren’t in the industrial age , have far lower real demand for labor and don’t face an outside threat to create fake comity.
Socialism of any kind makes people weak, dependent and unable to defend themselves. The scandinavian countries only lasted so long because they were so far north. And it definitely did not work for WWII Germany.
Rubbish.
The USSR lasted 75 years and was able to conquer a good chunk of Europe. Had they been willing to use nukes they could have ended us at will.
The NDSAP regime was insane but nation about 50% larger than Oregon conquered most of Europe for a time.
Hell the NVA was able to run the US out of Vietnam and North Korea is still standing
The US has a continent full of White people and an ocean as a border. Had we shared a border with either of these nations and has our current ethnic mix , good odds we’d be singing The International or Horst Wessel Lied
We are not going to invade other nations for resources any time soon and even if we went fully socialist we could manage a basic self defense.
As it is capitalist America and its a hell of a lot more capitalist than the USSR or NDSAP can’t educate its population, maintain its nukes or infrastructure and nor does it have proper borders.
Every other nation BTW can do these things except for failed states
Its not socialism that did this but capitalism, Cultural Marxism and technology that is killing us.
Wages are down in the US measured as percentage GDP by more than half because of tech and trade not a national pension system or old age heath care spending
As for Sweden say,during the Cold War they had an excellent military and social welfare at the same time. The USSR had 15x or more the population and more resources so they’d win no matter what but it was adequate to deter
Now should she US go more social democratic? Not up to me to decide and frankly there is too much chaos right now to do jmuch of anything
Trump’s arrival on the scene forced the people at Reason to drop their masks. In 2 years he’s done more good to their pet causes – lower taxes, deregulation, strict-constitutionalist Judges, better free-trade deals – than anyone since Calvin Coolidge. But they absolutely despise Trump because they are really just leftists getting paid to act like libertarians. Every full-timer there lives in DC, LA, or NYC. It’s comedy gold whenever one of them writes about a trip through America.
I went from being a daily reader and regular commented on Reason 3 years to occasionally visiting to see how bad they’ve gone. Their clicks and comments are way down in quantity and quality.
As I’ve said on Sailer’s site, I dropped my subscription to Reason nine or ten years ago. The constant cheerleading for immigration was just too much for me.
For a place that brags about having “Open Minds”, they are incredibly closed minded on the issue. They will cheerfully lie and manipulate data on the topic whenever it might help their arguments. Even now, they get called out on their BS in the comments and ignore it.
Yep, that’s why I dropped Cato several years back—yet another featured author on open borders (also helps to live 50 miles from MX, so my perspective—unlike theirs—was informed).
dump heritage too. and WSJ. WSJ is actively helping SPLC patrol youtube and twitter, reporting badthink.
The neocon mask-dropping has been good, too. Trump looks like he’s going to be a dud as a political executive, but “the dropping of the masks” has been highly clarifying for whatever comes next.
Exactly. We always knew that Trump was not going to save us–we’ll have to do that ourselves–and we also knew that he was at all times only a symptom, never a cause. He’s just riding a wave. And WE are the wave.
And a few obsessive trolls who post so much, 24×7, they they couldn’t possibly be doing anything else with their lives (Hihn, Tony, etc), have turned the comments into a train wreck.
I turned on tReason magazine when they did their pre-Iraq War II pro vs. con issue. How are lolbergs debating this insanity? Any real libertarian in 2002 knew it was going to be a typical government program—a total disaster!
– lower taxes, deregulation, strict-constitutionalist Judges, better free-trade deals – than anyone since Calvin Coolidge.
Oh My God….. That’s what Bush and Obama did last decade
Who the one talking about Bank bailout in 2008 at first place – Obama
Who the one talking about deregulation on gig economy(Uber, Airbnb) – Obama
Obama actually lower tax to the rich people
Only white working class got screw with Obama care, Section 8 housing
All that trump and Republican talking about stock and tax cut, a hard-working American people
which platform of republican party over century doesn’t work anymore since democratic party are masters of pandering women/minority
They didn’t protect border even-though promise about century
They did give amnesty instead of restrict immigration (Reagan,McCain)
Now god-dam Arizona/Iowa turn into blue state thanks to the immigration/minority shit
please, wake the fuck up
Trump will be end up one-term president and Republican party will buried alive in new coloured people’s United State
And yet nobody seems to be worrying about the collapse of white demographics: below replacement level fertility. You can’t get your white utopia until you have a fix for that. I don’t see one.
Just because you don’t have an answer, it does not mean there is no answer.
As we have seen in Asia, the Arab lands and Israel, fertility rates can change quickly and they are driven by cultural forces. As is often the case, get the culture right and most everything else falls into place.
Discredit modern feminism with your daughters and you’re halfway home. The good news is that they make it easy. As the news covers another pussy hat march featuring spittle spewing, single cat ladies in their 40s and 50s, just ask your daughter: “Does she look happy?”
Yeah, Guest, and ask your daughter if she really Believes All Women, and if she wants all of the men in her life to be subject to 36-year old rape charges, from institutions dominated by these Pussy-Hat types.
At this juncture it’s not 36 year old rape charges. It’s 36 year old “he hugged me and I didn’t like it”
Funny, but ended up having a portion of that conversation with my oldest daughter…after a visit to Trader Joes–which in our area appears to be the gravitational center for every lesbian, middle-aged cat lady and various in-tow beta males.
And make porn if not illegal extremely difficult to access. Young men will go back to screwing the girl next door if jerking off is less interesting.
At the turn of the 20th century the population of Europe was about half of today and they were just fine. On the other hand, Western Civilization will disappear, as prophesied by Oswald Spengler:
http://kilenc.blogspot.com/2007/02/comments-on-mark-steyns-america-alone.html
Ducunt Fata volentem, nolentem trahunt!
Nothing wrong with a less crowded world, safer, cleaner, another rational response by the Ice Peoples.
The worship of Growth at any cost is driven by paper debt. Interest rates should match population rates, but our economy is a fantasy based on making people move and buy junk to pay for unnecessary employment and speculation.
Rootless ‘citizenship’ means we can’t settle down and form community, thus the waves of loneliness and loss of meaning.
Glad to see Zman seperating left-libertarian Ru Pauls from right-libertarian Ron Pauls. Maybe he’ll hang them from seperate trees to keep things orderly!
Meanwhile, Trump raises the skull chalice to the old New Order. Jubilee, I say, we owe Them nothing.
They should be paying us tribute and endless reparations for the harm done.
Let’s recreate Eretz Israel and expand Christian Lebanon- nothing else will work- and take the oil back.
Then let us build some mighty big fences across the borders of the old Roman Empire and quarantine the problem. The Silk Road/One Belt should be a dividing line.
Along with a shift of the non-cucked right toward recognizing that whites are targeted for their skin color more than their ideas, another cultural change is needed. It’s past time to junk a failing economic system based on growing population numbers in an already overpopulated world.
We need a steady-state economy for stable numbers instead of one that endlessly gobbles up more land and resources.
Won’t we then be overwhelmed by the rising tide of the welfare class and Third World migrants? No, if we stop enabling subcultures and countries to breed like fruit flies.
One of the primary drivers of the ever growing population and economy religion is the need for the political filth to keep the peasantry believing in the Social Security ponzi scheme.
The lowering of wages and the destruction of the middle class- the most likely source of resistance, are highly desirable but secondary goals.
Winning brings the baby boom.
Winning what? A civil war with mass deportation is going to produce mass poverty and trauma not a baby boom at least for a period.
This is fine as in time its self correcting and the new nation will achieve its property carrying capacity.
Given how urban modernity is this uncharted territory, By and large once a certain level of development is reached and society becomes highly urban, fertility tends to decline.
This isn’t going away and if it does you’ll still support less people .
I suspect a healthy urban society has a TFR around 2 maybe a bit more in modernity, higher than now and stable but not that high.
This is a good thing unless you are growth crazed and as Edward Abbey put it “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”
Join the discussion…poverty brings fertility. no matter where you look the rich have no children , the middle class few and the poor many. I’m not saying it’s good , but it is absolutely a fact. compare the birthrate of rich Europe to poor Africa. rich USA to middle class mexico.
if the US goes full on war it may be that there won’t be food to eat or enough stability for a healthy society
And while I agree that its possible fertility rates could go up the nations of the former Yugoslavia which was quite recently in a civil war much like we’d face has a fertility level among the lowest in the world at 1.4 or lower !
Frankly a baby boom of traumatized stunted kids even if they are White isn’t better than what we have and is massively inferior to gradual repair.
The reason our societies here and in Europe broke so fast once the Commies pushed a but wasn’t too little Jesus but too many generations of people raised by men and in Europe women with PTSD
My guess is a real civil war will result in a population decline of up to half the population or more with a massive increase in poverty for a couple of generations since stable work won’t exist
More babies will be born but the already high US infant mortality rate will skyrocket
You could get a technical higher fertility rate but still have large scale population decline
Any high infant mortality is usually tied to the health of the mother, who is an alcoholic or drug addict. Most of the decline in infant and mother mortality is due to low tech innovations like c-sections, post natal infant resuscitation, and listerism. These are available almost everywhere. Neonatal ICU’s bring the numbers up, but only incrementally.
The TFR in Mexico was 2.18 in 2016 and might be lower now. That is a shade above replacement which is about 2.1 there
Its a more healthy number though the US having a population of over 300 million is in need of less people not more.
Mexican infant mortality rates are comparable to the US and immigration to that nation is pretty low so growth is probably from demographic momentum.
This puts Mexican fertility a bit above that of Sweden which was 1.8 in 2016
As for Africa, the people there are so radically different than Westerners that you can’t extrapolate much of anything
By comparison using 2016 figures you have a developed nation with highly religious nation with high inequality and high immigration with a 1.8 fertility (the US) a non religious nation with a welfare state with 1.8 fertility and a predominately Catholic country with less development and a safety valve for population with 2.18 fertility
This suggests that at most assuming the US is comparable to Mexico which is plausible we might get a small increase in fertility.
That said given how much champing at the bit for death and suffering just so there can be more babies some on the Right has is enough to make me want to vote Democrat or join VEHMT . There are enough White people in the US and the world and our lands even the good old US of A are crowded. We need a homogeneous homeland and eventually for our ratio of humanity to go back to its usual 20-25% but we don’t need a breeding war. We have plenty of us and in time it will self correct
I wonder if the birth rate correlates with who the parents expect to rely on in their old age. The poor cultures are more generational than the wealthy cultures – grandma lives with adult kids far more in the Hispanic families than the wealthy urbanites. Same is mostly true of rural blacks.
Birth rates in Hispanics actually precipitously decline by the 2nd generation in America, though.
The wealthy expect to take care of themselves in old age – and this is fine. However, the welfare state takes care of the poorer elderly and that is the primary problem with the low birth rate.
So I’d expect that a shift in burden of elderly care would have the impact on creating a stable birth rate, less movement, and less land expansion as well (one house where it currently takes two or more).
I know my dad had five so we would care for him in his old age.
It’s a non-problem. A sleght-of-hand the globalists use to justify mass immigration.
Exactly. If Europe *does* need “more people,” they at ALL times had the option of “recruiting” from North America and Australia, etc. That they did not is all you need to know about this subject.
You don’t deserve so many downvotes for this comment even if it is a bit black pill
The thing is low fertility is not a problem in a homogeneous society . An 85% or more White society is a still a White society with 1.6 TFR or 2.3 TFR
Kick the foreigners out and keep them out and it self corrects
Its also self correcting over long periods , several White groups (most L.D.S., The Amish and many Evangelicals) have well above average fertility. Give them a few decades and they’ll fix the situation.
Also as fertility is highly correlated to economic issues , a government capable of fixing immigration and who is also engaged in repatriation will end up no matter what other policies they chose drying up a lot of surplus labor
The situation that allows the foot dragging on wages we see now will go away by necessity as the only other options are shutting down the business
If for some reason automation becomes the only chosen solution and capital can be truculent when it comes to its business models, the deport gov will almost certainly be nationalist and can regulate or tax as needed.
“Deserve’s got nothing’s to do with it.” — Clint Eastwood
We all have it coming kid.
Japan.
——-
Here’s a more detailed answer.
1. Whites are not going to out breed half the world.
Billions of people would move to the United States or Europe if they could. I don’t care how high your birthrate, you’ll never overcome those numbers.
2. White birthrates very likely would rise in a white-only country for several reasons.
First, it would be cheaper to live in a white-only country. Why? Because you wouldn’t have to buy your way out of NAMs. A primary reason housing in decent public school districts is so expensive is because you need to keep the cost of housing high enough to keep out NAMs. If a white guy could live in a working class/middle class white neighborhood and afford a decent house with one salary, that would make having kids a lot easier and cheaper.
Second, fewer people makes land cheaper and pay better. That increase the birthrate. Check out Ben Franklin’s thoughts on this.
Finally, genetics will kick in to raise the birthrate. Due to advent of the pill and the decline of religion among whites, lots of people who weren’t really into having kids – for the first time in history – could have sex and not have kids. As a result, their birthrates collapsed, removing their kid-hating, non-religious genes from the overall white gene pool.
But guess what, the people who do want want kids and who are religious, are still having kids, increase their genes as a percent of the overall white gene pool. Therefore, over several generations, you’ll see more and more religious, kid-loving whites who will have more kids.
Nature is self-correcting.
Btw, you’re going to see the same thing with in-group whites. Whites who feel no loyalty to whites will either have no kids or mix with other groups. Whites who feel a kinship and loyalty to whites will breed with similar whites increasing those genes among whites.
We are reversing the out-group preference bred into us over the past 1000 years.